Theaetetus:I alone am best: Are you being deliberately obtuse, or what? I will do it even though I have said it like 8 times.

"I believe a man should be able to should be able to waive parental rights within the time frame that the woman has an opportunity to have an abortion, and once born, the child should get support from only the mother if she decided to carry the child to term after the fact."

Thank you!

So, you believe that the child or a guardian of the child should have no say in whether the father's obligation to the child is discharged: instead, the father should be able to unilaterally diminish the child's rights, provided only that he makes a statement within a predetermined time frame?

See, I guess that's the difference between you and me. I believe that you can't just walk away from a legal obligation to another person without, y'know, that other person getting a say so.

But, it's pretty clear that you're not arguing that men should be able to do something that women can currently do: at no point can a woman waive parental rights and obligations within any time frame, such that once born, the child gets support only from the father.

OMG you're dense. They have a say so, they can get an abortion or not get one. Its a pretty simple statement. I don't know what you're even arguing about but it seems to me you don't want to argue what we are saying instead trying to make up something you would rather argue about. I have work to do and cant keep explaining the same thing anymore. I would just like to tell you youre wrong.

Theaetetus:So, you believe that the child or a guardian of the child should have no say in whether the father's obligation to the child is discharged: instead, the father should be able to unilaterally diminish the child's rights, provided only that he makes a statement within a predetermined time frame?

See, I guess that's the difference between you and me. I believe that you can't just walk away from a legal obligation to another person without, y'know, that other person getting a say so.

You are happy with giving away a father's 5th and 14th amendment rights to the fruits of his own labor for 18 years without him having a choice. Not only did you take forever to get to your point, but it was a poor one at that. Leaving aside for a fact the idea that a child has any right to the father's income to begin with is beyond silly.

But, it's pretty clear that you're not arguing that men should be able to do something that women can currently do: at no point can a woman waive parental rights and obligations within any time frame, such that once born, the child gets support only from the father.

Wow, 30 posts later and you are just going to go back to ignoring what we actually have been arguing. That's some serious dedication man to a strawman, or some fine trolling. Congrats either way.

EWreckedSean:Because you are cherry picking out the time frame we are suggesting a man can make that decision, which is incredibly important to the point. And even though we keep adding it back in, you keep pretending we aren't for some reason

Nope, I'm happy to add it back in. I alone am best did it, in fact, even though you were too scared to:"I believe a man should be able to should be able to waive parental rights within the time frame that the woman has an opportunity to have an abortion, and once born, the child should get support from only the mother if she decided to carry the child to term after the fact."

You think that distinction is relevant, for some reason. I'm pointing out that, regardless of when the man attempts to waive his future obligation, under your proposal, the child never gets to agree or disagree to the waiver.

Now, if you wanted to propose a system whereby a child, upon reaching the age of 18, could waive the father's obligation and retroactively pay back 18 years of support, I'd be all in favor of it. Actually, it can be done now. Simple contract between the father and the child. It can even be done earlier - simple contract between the father and the child's guardian ad litem. But that's not what you're proposing.

Theaetetus:EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: How about you put some words in your mouth then:"I believe a man should be able to __________________, and the child should get support from only __________"

Fill in the blanks. Let's hear an affirmative statement.

1) I just farking said yes he should be able to opt out of financial responsibility at the time the decision is made to keep the child (i.e. carry it to term or not).

2) A woman has that same option through an abortion

That's my argument. It's easy for you to quote, because I actually typed it.

So filling in the blanks is too tough for you? Allow me:"I believe a man should be able to opt out of financial responsibility, and the child should get support from only the mother"

Right? Yes or no... It's a very simple question.

If no, then you do it:"I believe a man should be able to __________________, and the child should get support from only __________"

You are cherry picking my statement to remove a very essential part of it,

Nope. Over and over, I'm asking you to MAKE a statement. Bit difficult to cherry pick when I'm asking you to make a statement, no?

which is AT THE TIME THE DECISION IS MADE TO KEEP THE CHILD OR NOT. I have agreed repeatedly with the full statement, I am not suggesting at any point the father should be able to opt out.

Nope, like I alone am best, you believe that a father should be able to walk away from any financial obligation to his child, provided he waived that obligation early enough. The child (or a guardian ad litem, since the child didn't exist yet) didn't get to agree, or even get asked.In other words, you don't believe in constitutional rights of due process for the child.

Really, quote me the part of the constitution that gives a child right to his father's assets. If you are going to invoke the document, try not to invent rights that don't exist please. have you never heard of giving a child up for adoption, or turning it over to be a ward of the state. Both of those very legal options also remove a child's access to a father's assets.

EWreckedSean:Theaetetus:So, you believe that the child or a guardian of the child should have no say in whether the father's obligation to the child is discharged: instead, the father should be able to unilaterally diminish the child's rights, provided only that he makes a statement within a predetermined time frame?

See, I guess that's the difference between you and me. I believe that you can't just walk away from a legal obligation to another person without, y'know, that other person getting a say so.

You are happy with giving away a father's 5th and 14th amendment rights to the fruits of his own labor for 18 years without him having a choice. Not only did you take forever to get to your point, but it was a poor one at that. Leaving aside for a fact the idea that a child has any right to the father's income to begin with is beyond silly.

And you're back to arguing that supporting one's child is "indentured servitude", and that children have no right to support.

Theaetetus:EWreckedSean: Theaetetus:So, you believe that the child or a guardian of the child should have no say in whether the father's obligation to the child is discharged: instead, the father should be able to unilaterally diminish the child's rights, provided only that he makes a statement within a predetermined time frame?

See, I guess that's the difference between you and me. I believe that you can't just walk away from a legal obligation to another person without, y'know, that other person getting a say so.

You are happy with giving away a father's 5th and 14th amendment rights to the fruits of his own labor for 18 years without him having a choice. Not only did you take forever to get to your point, but it was a poor one at that. Leaving aside for a fact the idea that a child has any right to the father's income to begin with is beyond silly.

And you're back to arguing that supporting one's child is "indentured servitude", and that children have no right to support.

I love this invented right to a father's assets and the fruits of his labor that you have invented. It's funny.

EWreckedSean:Really, quote me the part of the constitution that gives a child right to his father's assets. If you are going to invoke the document, try not to invent rights that don't exist please.

9th Amendment.Now, please, quote me part of the constitution or contemporaneous writings of the founding fathers indicating that they didn't believe that children had a right to support from their parents.I mean, shiat, that right has been understood for hundreds upon hundreds of years. It's why we have the concept of the state pursuing deadbeat dads and child support in the first place.

EWreckedSean:Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Theaetetus:So, you believe that the child or a guardian of the child should have no say in whether the father's obligation to the child is discharged: instead, the father should be able to unilaterally diminish the child's rights, provided only that he makes a statement within a predetermined time frame?

See, I guess that's the difference between you and me. I believe that you can't just walk away from a legal obligation to another person without, y'know, that other person getting a say so.

You are happy with giving away a father's 5th and 14th amendment rights to the fruits of his own labor for 18 years without him having a choice. Not only did you take forever to get to your point, but it was a poor one at that. Leaving aside for a fact the idea that a child has any right to the father's income to begin with is beyond silly.

And you're back to arguing that supporting one's child is "indentured servitude", and that children have no right to support.

I love this invented right to a father's assets and the fruits of his labor that you have invented. It's funny.

Farky'd as believing that child support is unconstitutional servitude. Pretty much disqualifies you from every legal discussion.

Theaetetus:EWreckedSean: Really, quote me the part of the constitution that gives a child right to his father's assets. If you are going to invoke the document, try not to invent rights that don't exist please.

9th Amendment.Now, please, quote me part of the constitution or contemporaneous writings of the founding fathers indicating that they didn't believe that children had a right to support from their parents.I mean, shiat, that right has been understood for hundreds upon hundreds of years. It's why we have the concept of the state pursuing deadbeat dads and child support in the first place.

Let me guess... This is you?

The 9th amendment in no way, shape or form obligates once person to support another. Specifically because the 5th and 14th already enumerate the protection of an individual's property rights.

Theaetetus:EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Theaetetus:So, you believe that the child or a guardian of the child should have no say in whether the father's obligation to the child is discharged: instead, the father should be able to unilaterally diminish the child's rights, provided only that he makes a statement within a predetermined time frame?

See, I guess that's the difference between you and me. I believe that you can't just walk away from a legal obligation to another person without, y'know, that other person getting a say so.

You are happy with giving away a father's 5th and 14th amendment rights to the fruits of his own labor for 18 years without him having a choice. Not only did you take forever to get to your point, but it was a poor one at that. Leaving aside for a fact the idea that a child has any right to the father's income to begin with is beyond silly.

And you're back to arguing that supporting one's child is "indentured servitude", and that children have no right to support.

I love this invented right to a father's assets and the fruits of his labor that you have invented. It's funny.

Farky'd as believing that child support is unconstitutional servitude. Pretty much disqualifies you from every legal discussion.

Your inability to follow a simple conversation disqualifies you from every discussion period, but hey, I was bored.

EWreckedSean:Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Really, quote me the part of the constitution that gives a child right to his father's assets. If you are going to invoke the document, try not to invent rights that don't exist please.

9th Amendment.Now, please, quote me part of the constitution or contemporaneous writings of the founding fathers indicating that they didn't believe that children had a right to support from their parents.I mean, shiat, that right has been understood for hundreds upon hundreds of years. It's why we have the concept of the state pursuing deadbeat dads and child support in the first place.

Let me guess... This is you?

The 9th amendment in no way, shape or form obligates once person to support another. Specifically because the 5th and 14th already enumerate the protection of an individual's property rights.

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

Theaetetus:EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Really, quote me the part of the constitution that gives a child right to his father's assets. If you are going to invoke the document, try not to invent rights that don't exist please.

9th Amendment.Now, please, quote me part of the constitution or contemporaneous writings of the founding fathers indicating that they didn't believe that children had a right to support from their parents.I mean, shiat, that right has been understood for hundreds upon hundreds of years. It's why we have the concept of the state pursuing deadbeat dads and child support in the first place.

Let me guess... This is you?

The 9th amendment in no way, shape or form obligates once person to support another. Specifically because the 5th and 14th already enumerate the protection of an individual's property rights.

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

Theaetetus:EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Really, quote me the part of the constitution that gives a child right to his father's assets. If you are going to invoke the document, try not to invent rights that don't exist please.

9th Amendment.Now, please, quote me part of the constitution or contemporaneous writings of the founding fathers indicating that they didn't believe that children had a right to support from their parents.I mean, shiat, that right has been understood for hundreds upon hundreds of years. It's why we have the concept of the state pursuing deadbeat dads and child support in the first place.

Let me guess... This is you?

The 9th amendment in no way, shape or form obligates once person to support another. Specifically because the 5th and 14th already enumerate the protection of an individual's property rights.

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

Bwaaahahahahaaa!

Yes genius, the key word is others. the 5th and 14th protect property rights of an individual. Suggesting that the 9th allows those rights to be denied or disparage is an utter failing of what the law means.

How early are men usually able to get a vasectomy without having to fight their doctor for it?

How early are women able to get a tubal ligation without having to fight their doctor for it?

I feel that putting unequal restrictions on people's reproductive rights is far more encompassing than abortion - something that happens well after the fact. Denying pre-emptive measures out of "benevolent authority" seems to me like something out of the anti-choice camp, as it solidifies the position that pregnancy is punishment for having sex.

Ms.Maus:How early are men usually able to get a vasectomy without having to fight their doctor for it?

How early are women able to get a tubal ligation without having to fight their doctor for it?

I feel that putting unequal restrictions on people's reproductive rights is far more encompassing than abortion - something that happens well after the fact. Denying pre-emptive measures out of "benevolent authority" seems to me like something out of the anti-choice camp, as it solidifies the position that pregnancy is punishment for having sex.

aren't vasectomies far more easily reversed than tubal ligations? One is done with a pen knife and a cup of warm water and the other requires anesthesia, no?

I alone am best:Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Really, quote me the part of the constitution that gives a child right to his father's assets. If you are going to invoke the document, try not to invent rights that don't exist please.

9th Amendment.Now, please, quote me part of the constitution or contemporaneous writings of the founding fathers indicating that they didn't believe that children had a right to support from their parents.I mean, shiat, that right has been understood for hundreds upon hundreds of years. It's why we have the concept of the state pursuing deadbeat dads and child support in the first place.

Let me guess... This is you?

The 9th amendment in no way, shape or form obligates once person to support another. Specifically because the 5th and 14th already enumerate the protection of an individual's property rights.

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

Bwaaahahahahaaa!

Uhh exactly his point.

His point is that children have no rights of parent support, and for evidence, he points to... the property rights of the parent? Heh. It's almost like he has no idea what due process means.

EWreckedSean:1) I just farking said yes he should be able to opt out of financial responsibility at the time the decision is made to keep the child (i.e. carry it to term or not).

2) A woman has that same option through an abortion

That's my argument. It's easy for you to quote, because I actually typed it.

Then you are saying that you want the man to have more rights, because you are saying that you want a man to be able to legally abandon a living child, for whatever reason, while a woman cannot make the same legal choice.

This is a situation where biology does not treat men and women identically. The essential point is that you are conflating the right to bodily autonomy on the part of the woman with the right of the child to parental support. They are related as they both pertain to the process by which a child is first conceived and brought to term, but they are legally separate rights.

The equivalent right of the woman's right to abortion would be the right for the father to terminate the pregnancy as well. However, as that would necessarily infringe on the bodily autonomy of the woman, that is impermissible. The reverse is also true. A man cannot stop a woman from having an abortion without also impermissibly infringing on her right to bodily autonomy. This is due solely to the fact that pregnancy occurs within the woman's body.

Once the child exists as an independent legal entity, its right to support trumps both parent's desires to escape financial obligation. It is the child's rights as an innocent minor to be supported financialy by the parents save in the event of giving up the child for adoption, which must always be a joint decision - so the rights of the parents are equal in the case of a living child.

In order for there to be legal parity as you are demanding there would first have to be biological parity; i.e. neither party carries the child to term, you use some kind of as-yet hypothetical device as a uterine replacement to carry the child to term, and conception only occurs as a deliberate choice made by both parties.

As long as that remains impossible, the legal parity you want simply cannot happen, because there are not equivalent physical conditions and limitations on all parties. At that point, the designation of what is legally permissible involved figuring out which set of options is the least infringing on the rights of everyone involved, and which rights take precedence.

Well, bodily autonomy of the prospective mother trumps both the prospective father's desire to have a child and/or the prospective father's desire to escape financial obligation to the resultant child. Once the child is born, the child's right to support trumps both parent's desire to escape financial obligation.

The legal asymmetry derives from the biological asymmetry. You are not actually proposing a legal parity, but simply a different legal asymmetry, one that favors the father's desires over the mother's right to control her own body or the child's right to support. That is not legally tenable, as it results in greater infringement on rights than the alternative.

Is this a fair outcome? No, definitely not. But it is the least unfair outcome. Men get left holding the short end of the stick, but that is inevitable, because the realities of biology mean that someone is left holding the short end of the stick, and unfortunately the men are the ones with the least overriding interest in the situation, so they are the ones stuck with it.

You want to change that? Then do the work necessary to find a way to rectify the biological asymmetry I described first, because otherwise it simply shifts who gets screwed to someone that will be harmed more.

skullkrusher:Ms.Maus: How early are men usually able to get a vasectomy without having to fight their doctor for it?

How early are women able to get a tubal ligation without having to fight their doctor for it?

I feel that putting unequal restrictions on people's reproductive rights is far more encompassing than abortion - something that happens well after the fact. Denying pre-emptive measures out of "benevolent authority" seems to me like something out of the anti-choice camp, as it solidifies the position that pregnancy is punishment for having sex.

aren't vasectomies far more easily reversed than tubal ligations? One is done with a pen knife and a cup of warm water and the other requires anesthesia, no?

A tubal ligation is more easily reversed than an abortion. ;)

It's irrelevant to my point though - if a man or a woman wants to take proactive steps to mitigate unwanted pregnancy, they shouldn't have to fight with "oh, you're too young to make that decision, even though you are legally an adult." Too young to make that decision, but not too young to make the decision to carry a child to term/have an abortion? The decision over life/death is much more sobering than the decision to govern one's body, in my opinion.

Ms.Maus:they shouldn't have to fight with "oh, you're too young to make that decision, even though you are legally an adult." Too young to make that decision, but not too young to make the decision to carry a child to term/have an abortion?

KiltedBastich:Is this a fair outcome? No, definitely not. But it is the least unfair outcome. Men get left holding the short end of the stick, but that is inevitable, because the realities of biology mean that someone is left holding the short end of the stick, and unfortunately the men are the ones with the least overriding interest in the situation, so they are the ones stuck with it.

I wouldn't necessarily agree... Men don't have to face pregnancy, labor, surgery, complications, and physical impairment or death.If men are left holding the short end of the stick through having to support their own child, then women are holding an equally short stick, and it is only the child who has the long end of the stick.

Theaetetus:I wouldn't necessarily agree... Men don't have to face pregnancy, labor, surgery, complications, and physical impairment or death.If men are left holding the short end of the stick through having to support their own child, then women are holding an equally short stick, and it is only the child who has the long end of the stick.

Let me clarify, I meant that solely in terms of legal choices versus legal responsibilities. Men have the least choice in the matter for the responsibility they must assume, and so in that sense they are left holding the short end of the stick. But as I said, that is an inevitable consequence of the biological asymmetry of pregnancy, because the alternatives all involve inflicting worse infringements of rights on other individuals who have equivalent legal rights under the law.

Thus, if someone's rights must be infringed by the necessities of the conflicting interests and obligations imposed by the limitations of biology, you pick the option that is the least infringing. That is always leaving the father on the hook for support. It is not fun for the fathers, but it is the most pragmatic resolution.

Ms.Maus:It's irrelevant to my point though - if a man or a woman wants to take proactive steps to mitigate unwanted pregnancy, they shouldn't have to fight with "oh, you're too young to make that decision, even though you are legally an adult." Too young to make that decision, but not too young to make the decision to carry a child to term/have an abortion? The decision over life/death is much more sobering than the decision to govern one's body, in my opinion.

ah I thought you meant there was a disparity between how much the doctor tries to persuade a man vs a woman

Good. At its core, the treaty is an anti-discrimination treaty. Every person has the basic human right to associate, or not, with any person he/she chooses. This treaty, like every anti-discrimination treaty or law, does not give rights, it takes them away.

skullkrusher:Fart_Machine: The song is entitled Silent Scream after the anti-abortion video.

Not sure if this really makes your point.

that referring to an a fetus as "the unborn" and a "child" is pretty common in English even amongst people not likely to be super pro-lifers? Yeah, I think it makes my point nicely.

Why would you say the song isn't from a pro-life perspective? It's a song dealing with abortion from source material that has been Pro Life propaganda for over a decade. Slayer likes lyrics from a graphic point of view. It's why you have songs like Angel of Death and Behind the Crooked Cross.

DrPainMD:Good. At its core, the treaty is an anti-discrimination treaty. Every person has the basic human right to associate, or not, with any person he/she chooses. This treaty, like every anti-discrimination treaty or law, does not give rights, it takes them away.

Philip Francis Queeg:lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: So now you've moved the goalpost to saying that a child has no right to support from either parent. Holy Fark.

So you think abortion is murder? I didn't have you pegged for being pro-life.

Child, not fetus, the very same differentiation that you yourself made. Remember?

Oh, I misunderstood what your reply meant. I wasn't saying that. I was pointing out that parents being able to drop their rights and responsibilities to the child isn't unprecedented. Just like you can leave your baby at the hospital and sever responsibilities, a father, before it becomes a viable child should be able to sever the potential of responsibilities to the child. A mother already can.

KiltedBastich:Thus, if someone's rights must be infringed by the necessities of the conflicting interests and obligations imposed by the limitations of biology, you pick the option that is the least infringing. That is always leaving the father on the hook for support. It is not fun for the fathers, but it is the most pragmatic resolution.

Incidentally, this is also why I am fully in support of the development of a safe, noninvasive and fully reversible form of male birth control. Currently, men have essentially two options for taking proactive control of their own fertility: condoms (which have a failure rate and are at least marginally intrusive) or vasectomies (which are expensive, invasive and not fully reversible).

If men could inexpensively and reversibly control their own fertility to the same extent that the pill allows women to control theirs, a lot of these arguments would evaporate, because then you would have a greatly strengthened argument that getting a woman pregnant is either a deliberate choice or negligence, and that claims that being able to waive supports are a male right would be immediately thrown out by everyone, liberal and conservative both.

Fart_Machine:skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: The song is entitled Silent Scream after the anti-abortion video.

Not sure if this really makes your point.

that referring to an a fetus as "the unborn" and a "child" is pretty common in English even amongst people not likely to be super pro-lifers? Yeah, I think it makes my point nicely.

Why would you say the song isn't from a pro-life perspective? It's a song dealing with abortion from source material that has been Pro Life propaganda for over a decade. Slayer likes lyrics from a graphic point of view. It's why you have songs like Angel of Death and Behind the Crooked Cross.

Slayer also writes songs about murdering children and wearing their faces as a mask. That doesn't mean they like that sort of thing.

lennavan:Oh, I misunderstood what your reply meant. I wasn't saying that. I was pointing out that parents being able to drop their rights and responsibilities to the child isn't unprecedented. Just like you can leave your baby at the hospital and sever responsibilities, a father, before it becomes a viable child should be able to sever the potential of responsibilities to the child. A mother already can.

The situations are not biologically equivalent, and so cannot be legally equivalent. Someone is having their rights violated here, one way or the other. The status quo does this the least.

KiltedBastich:Then you are saying that you want the man to have more rights, because you are saying that you want a man to be able to legally abandon a living child, for whatever reason, while a woman cannot make the same legal choice.

Why can't a woman make the same choice? if the father wants the child, a woman could agree to have it under the condition that she be allowed to opt out of providing for it. Simple contract law would allow that. If neither want the child, she can opt out of the living child via turning it over to the state for adoption.

This is a situation where biology does not treat men and women identically. The essential point is that you are conflating the right to bodily autonomy on the part of the woman with the right of the child to parental support. They are related as they both pertain to the process by which a child is first conceived and brought to term, but they are legally separate rights.

Obviously biology can't make their choices exactly the same here. A woman must have an abortion, and a man has no choice to say yes if a woman says no.

The equivalent right of the woman's right to abortion would be the right for the father to terminate the pregnancy as well. However, as that would necessarily infringe on the bodily autonomy of the woman, that is impermissible. The reverse is also true. A man cannot stop a woman from having an abortion without also impermissibly infringing on her right to bodily autonomy. This is due solely to the fact that pregnancy occurs within the woman's body.

The equivalent right, by the very nature of biology, is for a man to be able to opt out the same as a woman can opt out, even if biology might make the nature of those opt outs different.

Once the child exists as an independent legal entity, its right to support trumps both parent's desires to escape financial obligation. It is the child's rights as an innocent minor to be supported financialy by the parents save in the event of giving up the child for adoption, which must always be a joint decision - so the rights of the parents are equal in the case of a living child.

You made a statement, and then immediately showed how that statement is untrue. Parents absolutely can opt out of financial obligation for a child. I don't understand why it should be ok only if one wants out, otherwise the other has to be an unwilling cash cow for 18 years?

In order for there to be legal parity as you are demanding there would first have to be biological parity; i.e. neither party carries the child to term, you use some kind of as-yet hypothetical device as a uterine replacement to carry the child to term, and conception only occurs as a deliberate choice made by both parties.

As long as that remains impossible, the legal parity you want simply cannot happen, because there are not equivalent physical conditions and limitations on all parties. At that point, the designation of what is legally permissible involved figuring out which set of options is the least infringing on the rights of everyone involved, and which rights take precedence.

I disagree. At least in terms of parental choice.

Well, bodily autonomy of the prospective mother trumps both the prospective father's desire to have a child and/or the prospective father's desire to escape financial obligation to the resultant child. Once the child is born, the child's right to support trumps both parent's desire to escape financial obligation.

We've already proven this to be a false statement.

The legal asymmetry derives from the biological asymmetry. You are not actually proposing a legal parity, but simply a different legal asymmetry, one that favors the father's desires over the mother's right to control her own body or the child's right to support. That is not legally tenable, as it results in greater infringement on rights than the alternative.

1) I'm not suggesting any rights to the father over the woman's body2) You've already proven that the child already has no right to parental support

Is this a fair outcome? No, definitely not. But it is the least unfair outcome. Men get left holding the short end of the stick, but that is inevitable, because the realities of biology mean that someone is left holding the short end of the stick, and unfortunately the men are the ones with the least overriding interest in the situation, so they are the ones stuck with it.

Being forced to bare the burden of supporting an unwanted child to the tune of often hundreds of thousands of dollars is the most fair? How do you figure? The most fair is that the parent wanting the child takes financial obligation for it. If your answer is what about the children, what about the lives of the thousands that are aborted every year? The best interest of the children would be served by outlawing abortion altogether, but we say the mother's rights to her own body for 9 months trump that, but a man's right to his own body and the 18 years of labor he must subject it to to pay for that child don't count?

KiltedBastich:Theaetetus: I wouldn't necessarily agree... Men don't have to face pregnancy, labor, surgery, complications, and physical impairment or death.If men are left holding the short end of the stick through having to support their own child, then women are holding an equally short stick, and it is only the child who has the long end of the stick.

Let me clarify, I meant that solely in terms of legal choices versus legal responsibilities. Men have the least choice in the matter for the responsibility they must assume, and so in that sense they are left holding the short end of the stick. But as I said, that is an inevitable consequence of the biological asymmetry of pregnancy, because the alternatives all involve inflicting worse infringements of rights on other individuals who have equivalent legal rights under the law.

Thus, if someone's rights must be infringed by the necessities of the conflicting interests and obligations imposed by the limitations of biology, you pick the option that is the least infringing. That is always leaving the father on the hook for support. It is not fun for the fathers, but it is the most pragmatic resolution.

By that measure wouldn't the least infringing be to outlaw abortion altogether, as it costs the unborn baby it's life?

KiltedBastich:lennavan: Oh, I misunderstood what your reply meant. I wasn't saying that. I was pointing out that parents being able to drop their rights and responsibilities to the child isn't unprecedented. Just like you can leave your baby at the hospital and sever responsibilities, a father, before it becomes a viable child should be able to sever the potential of responsibilities to the child. A mother already can.

The situations are not biologically equivalent, and so cannot be legally equivalent. Someone is having their rights violated here, one way or the other. The status quo does this the least.

During the period a pregnant mother can have an abortion, a father could submit a document to court to remove all rights and responsibility to any child that may result from the pregnancy.

Whose rights are being violated there? The mother does not have a right during pregnancy to child support, there is no child. The father is not losing any rights. And there is no child, there is no person. It is still the potential for a child. No rights were violated at all.